[INSTRM-1405] Provide the measurement algorithm used for AG spots Created: 16/Oct/21 Updated: 18/Nov/21 Resolved: 18/Nov/21 |
|
| Status: | Done |
| Project: | Instrument control development |
| Component/s: | spt_operational_database |
| Affects Version/s: | None |
| Fix Version/s: | None |
| Type: | Task | Priority: | Normal |
| Reporter: | hassan | Assignee: | Kiyoto Yabe |
| Resolution: | Done | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | EngRun | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Issue Links: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||
| Story Points: | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Sprint: | PreEngRun4, EngRun3Cleanup | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Reviewers: | hassan | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Description |
|
As discussed during the ICS/PFI telecon 2021-10-15: the second moment is dependent on the measurement algorithm used to measure AG spots. Please track this in the opDB, eg by an additional column in the agc_data table, and if necessary a separate table describing details of a given measurement algorithm. |
| Comments |
| Comment by Kiyoto Yabe [ 28/Oct/21 ] |
|
The same as
measurement_algorithm = Column(String, comment='Spot measurement algorithm (fast/slow)')
Any comments are welcome. karr Yoshida, Hiroshige |
| Comment by karr [ 28/Oct/21 ] |
|
We should probably do something more descriptive. Maybe "windowed" for my code and "sep" for the sextractor? I can change the keywords in the actor to match. |
| Comment by karr [ 28/Oct/21 ] |
|
In addition, I've uploaded a description of what methods are used to https://sumire.pbworks.com/w/browse/#:~:text=centroidMethod_karr.pdf |
| Comment by Kiyoto Yabe [ 28/Oct/21 ] |
|
Thank you for the document. I like descriptive keywords, but it's up to you. The column is `varchar`, so in terms of DB any keyword would be fine. |
| Comment by rhl [ 29/Oct/21 ] |
|
We'll need to be able to use these keywords to get back to an algorithm in GitHub. The SHA1 needn't be provided, of course, as we'll be tracking the AG code version (which package is this code in?). We need to know about the flux measurement, the centroider, and the second moments. In general those are all different. If there are important configurations (e.g. the definitions of the windows used) how are those tracked? Using this mechanism or something else? |
| Comment by rhl [ 29/Oct/21 ] |
|
Oh, and we also need the background levels in electrons over the bias. This is used for estimating the S/N (in conjunction with the second moments). |
| Comment by Kiyoto Yabe [ 08/Nov/21 ] |
|
Currently, versions of each actor used are not recorded in opDB. Is it a bad idea that we make `actor_version` (maybe GitHub tag can be used) and also `instdata_version` (again pfs_instadata tag can be used to track configuration yaml file) column in `agc_exposure` (and `mcs_exposure`) table? We may want to have the same mechanism in `sps_exposure`. Regarding the background level, we currently have a column `background` in `*data` table, which is in _count_s in my first thought but can be in _electrons. |
| Comment by rhl [ 11/Nov/21 ] |
|
| Comment by cloomis [ 12/Nov/21 ] |
|
The ICS archiver and the FITS headers have per-actor versions, and actually a bit more detail than that: for any given actor we archive the version of the major ups packages (pfs_utils, tron_actorcore, etc), and for the FITS-generating actors we put the sub-package versions used by that actor into the header. W_VRxxxx cards are reserved for that purpose. Eups version unless the product directory is live, in which case git SHA-like. What to do for the opDb? Algorithm selection can be a runtime choice, so package versions might not be enough, but should be findable for any code we write. Not sure what to do: putting package versions in every exposure table feels crazy. Point to the headers? |
| Comment by Kiyoto Yabe [ 17/Nov/21 ] |
|
For now, I will add two string columns (`version_actor` and `version_instdata`) after discussion with cloomis and rhl. |
| Comment by Kiyoto Yabe [ 17/Nov/21 ] |
|
I think current changes are sufficient for the coming engineering run. Could you review that if possible? |
| Comment by karr [ 17/Nov/21 ] |
|
The column for centroid method looks good to me. |
| Comment by hassan [ 17/Nov/21 ] |
|
Proposed changes look fine to me also. |
| Comment by Kiyoto Yabe [ 18/Nov/21 ] |
|
merged |